Banjagere Jayaprakash may be no Salman Rushdie but his Kannada work Aanu deva horaganavanu is hurtling into a major literary tsunami. The slim 85-page book which makes the incendiary claim that the 12th century social reformer and Veerashaiva icon Basavanna was not a Brahmin but belonged to the untouchable maadiga (chamar) caste, has proved to be pure dynamite, especially among the politically powerful Lingayats, who say Basavanna has been insulted.

Protests and processions have broken out in several parts of Karnataka. A picketing of the Vidhana Soudha has been lined up for later this month. And the clamour is now growing for the book to be proscribed. Should the book be banned because it “hurts” Lingayat feelings? Or should its contents be discussed, disputed and debated? Can a writer “scholar” make whatever claim he wants without opening himself to scrutiny? If we keep banning books that somebody somewhere doesn’t like, what will we be left with?

37 comments

Churumuri gets it wrong again. The issue is not about the claim that Basava was born as a Madiga. But the claims in the book (of course without any proof) that he was born illegitimately and his sister was a Devadasi. While many scholars have rejected his claims, the religious leaders consider his claims amount to apachara.

Whether you stand for banning or not, supreme court has set a legal precedence by upholding GoK ban on Dharmakarana by PV Narayana for hurting the religious sentiments.

My simple solution to this problem is JUST IGNORE the book. Whether it is necessary to approach the courts or not it is left to the government. Karnataka has also seen a turbulent situation when a translated short story was published in the Deccan Herald. The common man cannot understand the intricacies.

Does everything to do with print have to become a freedom of expression issue? Banjagere Jayaprakash is reputed to be a scholar with a PhD. He is supposed to have written a “scholarly” work. Therefore, he and his work must both be open to a “defence” from other scholars. But by absenting himself from seminars about the book, and by refusing to debate and discuss the issue with peers and scholars, Dr Jayaprakash has only shown that he is a hit-and-run artiste, basking in the publicity that his work is fetching him. Since we are not talking of magic-realism fiction here, he needs to show that he has employed the rigour and the research to come to the conclusion he has. If he doesn’t, he has to face the music, even if it means banning the book.

this freedom of speech thingie is interesting, in that it prevents state’s tyranny on an individual but what about the other way round what protects the “state” from the tyranny of an individual? similarly what does the state do against the terror of an individual? Roy-akka and Devi-atte have ready made canned rationalizations for these, something along the lines that since the quibble is against the state it is within rights to undercut it. absolutely acceptable ante.

i know the issue is not an attack on state, but the author bears the burden of proof since he disturbs the status quo. Even academically, it is bad “science”. For example, one cannot say discredit the pythagoras theorem and expect to be published, unless one backs it with proof or atleast plausible conjectures.

perhaps the way forward is to leave the book unbanned but discredit its claims through rebuttal and perhaps boycott. but that is a very academic way of going about it.

G3S…
hmm. monopoly on violence? did you mean that state is generally more powerful than the individual? so blood-less coups ok?
why have elections & a state if we donot have trust the state? doubting players is one thing, undercutting the state itself another.
eg. there is a difference for example tories dissing blair and that one eyed jack undercutting the state.
and roy & MS Devi rationalize violence & other forms of undercutting.
(patkar i have sympathies for, but roy, sumne piggybacker forget her.)

this can take many forms…
for example, we can talk of secularism and then resist being subject to secular laws. we can talk of multi-religious setup and then undercut that through through evangelistic appeals to exclusivist ideas.

bottomline, as much as the state is expected to believe in the system, individuals should also believe in the system.

And sure, we certainly rememebr that shield called “freedom of expression”, don’t we?

The question is where do you draw the line? Whatever you do, there is at least one person who does not like it. Banning a book is easy, but certainly not the right solution.

I guess it is a little annoying when you specifically try to hurt the sentiments of a group by trying to be ‘creative’. But when someone tries to question the authenticity of history, what is wrong?

Jayaprakash may have played a cheap trick here. Most likely, the book is grabage (I haven’t read, so I can’t comment on the book itself). He may not be available for debates and discussions. Sure enough, these do not qualify for banning the book.

TS, a few things holding me up here…will mail you THE book soon ;)

And yes, Patkar is worthy of sympathies…..well Roy, the country should give a ‘who the hell is Roy?” look and it will automatically bring down the ‘false’ ego.

@Tarlesubba, I agree with most of what you say. Can we trust our heavily polarised academia for a real debate? It’s easy to go after flat-earthers or creationists with scientific arguments, but history is different as it is always under (re)construction. A lying historian can still escape the scrutiny under favourable academic environment.

@Nizam, here is a short list of people with varied backgrounds who have questioned the value of this ‘research’ – religious heads such as Panditaradhya Swamiji of Sanehalli, Tontadarya Swamiji of Gadag; writers/academics such as Dr. DeJaGow, ChiMu, Dr. Kalburgi, Prof. Siddalingiah etc. Even Ravi Belagere has written a column about it. Listen to Dr. Prithvi Shobhi’s review of the book here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_8oq3-SUuQ

There are conflicting views on Basavanna since a long time. Even earlier some controversial books have appeared, but they were not bbanned. Any ban on such a work will hit at the roots of academic discussion and research relating to historical issues. Such views have to be countered with authentic counter-arguments and not banning the book. I remember well when a Kodagu author wrote a book on Tipu Sultan and his attack on Kodagu and its people, there were some protests and demand for its ban. But Kannada stalwarts like Ha.Ma. Nayak rejected such a demand stating that there should be academic discussion on such controversial issues so that the issue can be taken nearer to truth, not curb it. Same should apply regarding Jayaprakash work also. If what the author has stated is not correct, it should be countered with arguments based on research and facts and not by threats and demonstrations.

I meant that in every state, the state alone has the right to use violence to resolve anything. The individuals don’t. Which is why the state can have the death penalty and be legal, while you and I can’t go kill anyone. Also why the state can wage war while you and I can’t.

Since this violence is usually the last resort (theoretically) and is the ultimate weapon (theoretically), every other non-violent form of expression is ceded to the individual.

As for bloodless coups, what I am talking about is the maintenance of the status quo. Coups change that and what I said is no longer applicable.

Now you could say that the very nature of “free speech” of the kind seen here is to change the status quo and hence the boundaries are blurred to begin with. However, it goes back to the definition of the state – in our case it allows freedom of speech even at its own detriment, with suitable safety valves to prevent its own collapse. If that is not the case, we don’t have freedom of speech.

For me it does not matter what Basavanna’s caste was at the time of his birth and Lingayats should feel the same way as his contribution to humanity are his vachana gems which shine eternal wisdom and truth and will do so as long as the world exists.

G3S, you misunderstand me. Make no mistake, Banjagere Jayaprakash has the freedom to express himself. But that freedom is with him only when he is expressing his thoughts (as an author of fiction) not while dabbling with facts (as a scholar). In his book, he is revisiting and relooking at established or accepted historical/mythological beliefs. Presumably, he has done some research and found some documents. They may be authentic, they may not. He may be right in his interpretation, he may not. As a scholar he must be willing to defend what he has said or found just as the other side must be willing to defend its closely held beliefs. He just cannot lob a grenade into the Veerashaiva theatre and turn his eyes away. That is what a terrorist does, not a scholar, presuming he is one. Oh, by the way, freedom does come with caveats. Article 19 (1) (a) comes with “reasonable restrictions”.

I am totally at loss to understand the dust kicked up by Dr. Banjagere Jayaprakash’s book ‘Anudeva Horaganavanu’. I do not know of what earthly or spiritual gain is the raging controversy whether Basavanna the great social reformer of the 12th century was a Brahmin as has been believed hitherto or a Dalit as discovered by the controversial author Dr. Banjagere. Was it not Basavanna who said in one of his oft-quoted vachanas ‘Ivanarava, ivanarava endenisadirayya; Iva nammava, iva nammava endenisirayya’ (Don’t count a person as to whose is he, whose is he. Instead say that he is our own, he is our own). What an irony that Basavanna who was the other name for catholicity is now being segregated as belonging to this caste or that community! It is no wonder if one day some Christian puts forward another far-fetched theory that Basavanna was a Christian since he was also a progeny descending fromAdam and Eve! It is wise not to attemt to trace the origin either of a river or of a seer. Is it not sufficient that Basavanna was a homo sapien, a human being? In fact, Basavanna was a human being par excellence before he could be a Brahmin or a Dalit! We will be doing a great justice to that great soul by identifying him for what he stood, preached and practised instead of making a fuss about his birth which is inconsequential.

@Aatmasakshi, Your freedom with caveats argument is what the supreme court used in justifying GoK ban on Dharmakarana. Here is a quote from the justices Singh and Bedi in their ruling – “It is true that forfeiture of a newspaper or book or a document is a serious encroachment on the right of a citizen, but if forfeiture is called for in the public interest it must without a doubt have pre-eminence over any individual interest …”

I don’t think absolute freedom exists in any country, not even in the mature liberal democracies of the west. You have defamation laws in UK. In US, FCC will come after you if you say certain curse words on network TV. Many democracies even have blasphemy laws.

If the so called “facts” are not throughly contested the truth will never see the light of day. As they say if you repeat a lie long enough … it may just be believed as the truth.
Ultimately, the author just has to prove how he came up with the so called “facts” else call his book a fiction and NOT some scholarly research thesis. It is as simple as that.
If someone tries to distort history to suit his or her vision of the world and profess it as a fact then there is truly cause for concern.
Today it is historical facts on Basavanna that have been twisted , tomorrow it may be Madhavacharya or say Ambedkar or Vivekananda or even the story of Indian Independence .. just in the name of sensationalism.
Should we let cheap delusionist authors re-write history and claim it as the truth? Shouldn’t there be any scrutiny about how they got to their conclusions? Is questioning their view supressing their freedom of speech?
How about the freedom of speech of the people who desire to know how he drew his conclusions?

Who ever says that book is wrong about Basavana, i do not agree, Lingayat community was born sever 100 years back when even Basavana was not born. Lingayath community existed when Allamma prabhu was ruling. Basavana not feeling comfortable with the Brahmin community (To which he belongs) stepped into Lingayeth community and converted all Backward class people into Lingayath, then only this Saadaru, Banajiga, Shetru, Gowda (All lingayath subcaste) were born. Basavanna just uplifted and gave prachara of Lingayath, just like christan community are preeching the slum dwellers to become christians. But the fact is Lingayath community existed much before Basavanna existed.

So when Basavanna is not a pure lingayath, i think all my friends who belong to Lingayath community do not scribble your mind for him. Lingayath are recognised as lord Shiva’s children. So Basavanna is just a preecher like others (Jesus, Gurunanak, etc…) Basavanna is not god. So friends do not fight for that book, we should not care what the writer has said in the book as we worship Lord shiva and not Basavanna. We are Jangamas, children of Shiva, and not those lingayath who are converted by Basavanna.

Authors have the onus to do comprehensive research before writing a book. Unfortunately, many of them focus on contentious writing without strong evidence and proof. I came across authors who have written more than10 books in a year. One can only imagine the quality of those books.

what is the meaning og the words.. “We are Jangamas, children of Shiva, and not those lingayath who are converted by Basavanna”.. can u elaborate..

“Basavana not feeling comfortable with the Brahmin community (To which he belongs) stepped into Lingayeth community and converted all Backward class people into Lingayath, then only this Saadaru, Banajiga, Shetru, Gowda (All lingayath subcaste) were born”..

Being a scholer he (B Jayaprakash) should do such a work that make more hormany and more benefits to society in which he is living. People are always inocents and one should not misguide for personal benefits. The Truth must come out from more reasearch and analyses. And be make it acceptable to one and all on the real scientific facts. I would be more happy even if Guru Basavanna was born as Madiga .

kula kula kulavendu odadaadadiri, always say secular like our Devegowdru in all open forums and do caste based polarization during election time where he successfully polarized all Vokkaliga votes grabbed from Cong saying JDS is only party for Vakkaligas and none other party for them.
He grabbed majority in old-mysore region with his almost dead party, poor Cong people didn’t get his stategy.
See D Gowda & his sons magic in bi-election results, pity on Cong.

What do you know about Jangamas???????? who is this banjagere after all?? if you do not know the difference between being called as a Lingayath and being called as a jangama then do not post the comment on my thinking level. Do you know at what level are you thinking?? My question is what do you know about people been converted as Lingayath by Basavanna? Basavanna is neigher Brahmin nor Lingayath.

I too like the vachanas and understand the meanings of Vachanas written by Basavanna. They are really wondefull. But if the question comes of worshipping him, i will always say NO. He is not a god and he is not born your so called Lingayath. I am a pukka Jangama and i am proud of what i am. So please, if you do not know to accept the reality then you do not have rights to comment on some bodies thoughts. I have not commented on anybodies thoughts. I have posted what i have understood by myself and my ability. Dont judge my ability or do not be tooooooooo smart.

Bharthesh is a “Jangama” means one who does “Vaidika rituals” and equal to Brahmins in Lingayath community. Generally only Jangamas become pontifs of mutts. (Exceptions : a few like Sri Siddaganga Mutt swamiji).
These jangamas think they are superior and are childern of one Mr. “Shiva” and not born to their parents ! Their icon is imaginary figure Sri. Renuka, who is supposed to have to come to this world from an exploding Linga !

Now regarding worship of Basavanna & sharanas, they never advocated Idol/Icon worship. They recommend “Ishtalinga ” worship only, which is nothing but replica of entire universe…the creation of God who has No Form, incomparable, Invisible, inexpressable. So dear Jangamas be proud of yourself but shun your superiority complex and dont be lazy to survive on offerings from devotees. Om Namah Shivaya…Sri Guru Basavalingaya Namaha…

Has anybody commented on the silence of the Panchacharya mathas over the issue?

Why did Banjagere turn tail when his work–a foolish one which makes no distincttion between autobiographical fiction and autobiography– got exactly the kind of attention he wanted? Maybe his own anumaanitha sathya got to him.
I wish the book burners had given a better account of their knowledge of Basava’s life. Basava himself would not have objected to Banjagere’s amateur sherlock holmesing.

look, why are you all worried about the great reformer of all the time, the BASAVANNA’s birth details. wheather he is a brahmin or shudra does not matter. it is his work matters. what he has achieved, can not be achieved by others so easily.Let the dogs barks donot worry, let it bark after some time it will be retired.